Capital Punishment

Front 1

Marshall's hypothesis: answer to public and states voicing their concerns for the practice of DP after Furman.

Back 1

Evolving standard of decency sould not be based on pubplic opinion. But rather if they were fully informed about all the infomration (racial discrimination, costs) aamericans would not support the DP

Front 2

The dominate argument in Furman that permeates all of the opinions is that the DP is ___________

Back 2

Arbitrary: It is like getting struck by lightening.

*It can be used a lot, but only on a few

*no reason those few are the worst of the worst

Front 3

In Gregg v Georgia, the court finds that the Georgia statute on its face is ________

Back 3

Constitutional. Satisfies the Furman issues

Front 4

Post-Furman, states enacted 2 different types of statutes to keep the DP: ______ or ______

But all new statutes had __________

Back 4

1) Guided Discretion

2) Mandatory

Bifurcation

Front 5

Gregg Opinion: First part the court rules that the Georgia statute is consistent with ___________ because:

Back 5

Evolving Standards of decency because 35 legislatures passed new statutes after furman. also serves the legislative purpose of retribution and deterrence

Front 6

Marshall's dissent in Gregg: DP is always excessive because ________ and _______

Back 6

1)Retribution is vengeance and that is not a good enough reason

2) Punishment must comport with basic concept of human dignity

Front 7

In Proffitt v Florida, the court ruled that __________ is not unconstitutional

Back 7

Judge sentencing (in threshold jurisdiction)

Might actually lead to better consistency

Front 8

This is the case where the court ruled aggravating factors cant be too vague

Back 8

Godfrey v Georgia

Front 9

Georgia agg factor in Godfrey that was too vague

Back 9

"Outrageously or wantonly horrible, and inhumane."

Front 10

In Gregg, LDF argued that the Georgia law is still arbitrary because

Back 10

Prosecution discretion, jury discretion, executive clemency

Front 11

In Gregg, pluarlity (White) responds to LDF concern by saying:

Back 11

1) Arbitrary mercy is not a problem (LDF says no difference

2) Still safeguard from appellate proportionality review

Front 12

Requirement laid out by Godfrey (any Maynard)

Back 12

Agg factor has to "meaningfully narrow the class of death eligible people" with some objective core content

Front 13

In this case the court held the agg factor constituional which read "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved"

Back 13

Walton v Arizone

Front 14

Walton v Arizona, created a Godfrey exception because in Arizona:

Back 14

It was done by judges. There was a limiting instruction and we presume tht judges know the law. Its vagueness doesnt mtter. (note this is overruled in 2002)

Front 15

Facts of Walton, that made it "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved":

Back 15

Stated: "i never seen a man pee himself"

Shot him (thinking he killed him) but guy ended up living for 10 days. (but how does this go to the mens rea) only if view cruelity from "harm" only.

Front 16

Two agg factors found in Zant v Stevens: ______ and _______

Zant is in Georgia, which is a ________ jurisdiction

Back 16

1) Prior captial felony or serious history of substantial offenses (vague factor)

2) Escaping from lawful custondy (lawful factor)

Front 17

In Zant the court ruled that as long as one of the aggrevating factors is permissible, the judgment is valid because:

Back 17

In a threshold jurisdiction, the point of agg factors is only to narrow the class.

Front 18

Marshall dissent in Zant (2 points)

Back 18

1) Still giving standardless discretion once there is just one agg factor (should be weighint)

2) Jury will still pay attention to fact that there is 2 agg factors when deciding mercy/no mercy

Front 19

This case, _________, is like Zant, where one of the agg factors was impermissible, but it was in a _________.

Back 19

Clemons v Mississippi

Weighing state

Front 20

Court ruling in Clemons v Mississippi:

Back 20

Nothing in the 6th amenmdnet indicates that a d's right to a jury trial was infringed where an appellate court nvalidates one of 2 or more aggravating factors found by the jury, but affirms the death sentance after itselffinding thaat one or more valid remaining agg factors outweighed the mitigating factors

Front 21

Clemons v Mississippi: Gave appellate court two options

Back 21

1) Allows for reweighing by appellate is permissible (on remand, said we dont do that)

2) Harmless error is permissible (but here it clearly wasnt because entire closing argument was about heinous)

Front 22

Brown v Sanders the court pretty much overrules _________ by saying:

Back 22

Clemons. The impermissible aggrevators here were still properly before the jury as e vidence. Does not matter if 1 or 4 agg factors, jury is just going to look at Circumstances

Rule: As long as it is permissible for jury to see it--> no problem

Front 23

In Creech, the vague statute of "utter disregard" was _________ because:

Back 23

Permissible. It was defined as "attitude of a cold blooded pitliless slyer" and that is an objective core content.

(basically only narrows passionate killings or spousal killings)

Front 24

Lewis v Jeffers facts and 9th circuit holding:

Back 24

Girlfriend rats to police about drug business. Defendant kills her by giving a lot of heroin. Hits her when she is dead/almost dead saying "this is what you get"

9th circuit reverses DP saying this is not "depraved"

Front 25

Lewis v Jeffers (O'connor ruling)

Back 25

reverses 9th circuit, gives DP. If you are deling with an adequate aggravating factor it is now subject to deferential 'any rational fact finder'

Now 1) deference on adequte narrow factor and 2) incredible deference on wehter the facts meet the agg factor/limiting structure